HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP August 28, 1979
~ o¡ ANDOVER
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 28, 1979
AGENDA
1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M.
2. Agend a Approval
3. Award Contract - Section 17, Section 18.
a. A resolution will be prepared accepting the
bids, however, the actual award portion will
be left blank for you to fill in based on
your decision whether to do all or parts of
the proposed improvement.
4. Set Sale Date - Bonds, Section 17, Section 18
a. The Fiscal Agent, King Forness, will be
present to provide you with dates, etc.
5. Award Contract - Prairie Road Bridge Approach
a. The City Attorney has reached an agreerrent with the
only property owner not previously handled (R. Rydh).
They will settle for $1,000.00 for the .31 acres
needed for easerrent. If the $1,000 settlerrent is
approved, the contract can be awardèd.
6. Meeting Date - Work Session (COItprehensive Plan)
7. Meeting Date - Budget ¡'ork Session
~ o¡ ANDOVER
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 28, 1979
MINUTES
A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry
Windschitl on August 28, 1979, 7:38 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown
Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota.
Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach
Councilmen absent: None
Also present: City Engineer, John Davidson; Fiscal Agent from Springsted, Inc.,
King Forness; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and interested residents
Agenda Approval
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the Agenda be approved as published with
the addition of 2a, Lot sizes, and 2b, 161st Avenue, and Item 8, Letter from Bloomberg,
Inc. Motion carried unanimously.
Lot Sizes for Assessment Purposes
Engineer Davidson reviewed the Report to the Andover City Council on Assessment Policy
for Corner Lots, Commission No. 6223-79, dated August 28, 1979, explaining the basis
for the present assessment policy of allowing a 200-foot credit for the sideyard that
fronts on a street. He noted that in the R-l and R-2 districts, there is the potential
to split the lot further which would mean that there is a direct benefit to a sideyard.
Splitting of R-l or R-2 lots would only be allowed after the extension of sanitary sewer
facilities, but the potential for extension is not uniform across the City. If the
City chose to use the same rationale behind the 200-foot credit in the R-3 zone, a
credit for the R-2 and R-l zon8S should approximately equal the average sideyard
distance. This would result in a 360-foot sideyard credit in the R-l zone, a 260-foot
credit in the R-2 zone and a LOO-foot credit in the R-3 zone.
Discussion was that going strictly by zoning may not be representative of the lot sizes;
in the Section 17 project, the zoning is R-l but the lots are smaller than that; up
until recently lots in the R-l district were 330 feet of frontage instead of 300;
suggested that the wording in the assessment policy be to treat each district on an
individual basis to make it the average of the lot depth in the area; suggestion by
Engineer to compute the frontage of all properties in the zone and divide by the total
number of lots on the basis of equal benefit, but it gives an unfair advantage to that
lot that can be severed.
Larry Koeð, 16055 Vintage - under present zoning, the lots in Section 17 cannot be
Spilt; an the way they are built, another street could not be put in.
Sandy Bauer, 3720 161st - liked the Engineer's suggestion for assessing on the basis
of equal beneflt. In their case, they have a double lot, but their driveway cuts off
the one lot so it is not buildable. Under the present policy, they are being charged
triple the size of a normal lot out there.
Gerald McNeal, 16145 Valley Drive - has an odd-shaped lot, 30-feet wide and 41S-feet
deep. How would that be treated? It is not a buildable lot. The 415 is on the road
to be upgraded; the 30 feet is on a county road. His garage comes to the edge of that
lot. The reason for the odd-shaped lot was a mistake made when the road was built in
All adi nAcres. There is access through the lot. Mayor Windschitl stated that
that particular situation would have to be looked at as a completely special case.
Mr. Davidson also noted that any permanent ponding facilities would not be assessable
because they could not be filled or built upon. Discussion was on determining a
minimum lot width assessment and on the various alternatives to establishing the width;
noted in the Alladin Acres/Section 17 project, there are a number of different lot sizes
and that this project could be broken up into three areas -- Alladin Acres, the smaller
lots in the area of Enchanted Drive and the larger lots in the areas of Xenia and Vintage.
--" -_.~-
Special City Council Meeting
August 28, 1979 - Minutes
Page 2
(Lot Sizes for Assessment Purposes, Continued)
Allen Melba' 3912 Enchanted Drive - just about all lots on Enchanted Drive are 1/2
acre, and etermining equal frontage assessment for all lots would be making them
pay for work being done in the other area.
General feeling of the Council was that the urban area side assessment doesn't apply
to the rural areafrb~~~~ihere is generally three different lot sizes in this project;
felt the minimum/on e lots should be 330 feet as that is what the average lot
frontage is on the larger lots; suggested taking the average lot depth in each sub-
division and using that as the credit for the sideyard credit; in this project
that would be using three different credits; and felt the impact of this change in
the assessment policy would add approximately $1 a front foot to the assessment on
the project.
(?) - asked why the total project cost couldn't be divided by the total number
of parcels. All people use that road equally and should pay the same amount. Mayor
Windschitl explained some would be paying more and some would be paying less on a per
parcel assessment rather than a front-foot assessment. Those on larger lots would not
disagree with this sy$tem; but those on smaller lots would pay more than on a front-
foot assessment and can argue their benefit is not as great as the larger lots.
(1) - felt the property value is not going to increase much more than $2,000
and that it is more fair to have an equal assessment.
Mr. McNeal - Alladin Acres - felt most of the larger lots in that area have no access
to that road whatsoever, so the only benefit is to keep the dust off their house. He
didn't think they should get the lion's share of the assessment. Mayor Windschitl
stated the City recognizes that and the City Attorney is going to look at the assessment
of those who front on Valley Drive. Mr. Davidson noted the results of the bids do not
include the 10 percent contingency factor.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we direct the Engineer to revise the
Assessment Policy to reflect that the minimum to be excluded from assessment on the
sideyard be based on the average lot depth in the local subdivision. Discussion:
Intent is to leave the "local subdivision" a matter of judgement to some extent; in
the project before the Council there are three different figures that would be used
for sideyard computations; the frontage would be treated the same for everyone but
irregular-shaped lots would be narrowed back as per the policy in the assessment policy.
ADDITION TO MOTION by Lachinski to include the computation for the average depth of
lots on the regular lots as well as corner lots. Second still stands.
Ms. Bauer - asked about going per parcel assessment instead of front foot. She wondered
if there has been a lot of complaints about that, as she hasn't heard anyone voice that
opinion. Mayor Windschitl explained the present policy came about over the years
where engineers and attorneys have dealt with the appeals dealing with assessments.
As the courts began to interpret between lot sizes and benefit received, cities went
to front-footage assessments or some type of equalizing method. To deviate from the
written policy, the City must be able to defend it in court.
Dick Thom)son, 3968 Enchanted Drive - new to the area - his lot has 305 feet of frontage
of which 25 to 160 lS on the curve of a road and is facing a swamp. He asked if he is
going to be assessed for the land in front of the swamp which is owned by somebody else
or just on what is in front of him. Mr. Davidson stated it is a special condition;
and if there is a problem after the assessment hearing, Mr. Thompson can appeal.
Normally any parcels that are not developable from the standpoint of being a permanent
ponding facility are not assessable. Any low area that is not a permanent ponding
facility and that can be filled normally are assessed.
VOTE ON MOTION: Carried unanimously.
Special City Council Meeting
August 28, 1979 - Minutes
Page 3
161st Avenue Discussion
Councilman Lachinski explained the Road Improvement Committee considered changing the
five-year MSAH priorities and looked at 161st as a possible State Aid improvement.
The Committee felt that the next priority after Hanson Boulevard should be a crossover
between Round Lake Boulevard and Tulip in the area of 16Sth Avenue (an extension of
County Road #58) to establish access to the northwest section of the City.
Forest Cerny, 15934 Xenia - asked if it were possible to make that a dirt road and
make 161st a tarred road. Councilman Lachinski stated that once the dirt road is
built, the tar is the inexpensive part of the project; but if a dirt road is established
on an MSA project, it must be tarred. The Committee was looking at the ability to get
emergency equipment in and out of the northwest section of the City.
Mayor Windschitl reviewed the alternative ways of building 161st and the Council
discussion at the August 21, 1979, Regular Meeting relative to the problem of assessing
the properties along 161st Avenue. Councilman Lachinski stated before the Road
Improvement Committee makes a commitment on when 161st should be done, they would like
to see the research that TKDA is doing on the entire MSA street system. It also
depends on what the Finance Committee does in terms of assessing on MSAH roads.
Assessing for those roads would allow the City to speed up MSAH projects considerably.
Andy Lantos, 3616 161st - made a calculation on what it would cost to interior property
Owners lf dollars from 161st were spread out over the residents in the rest of the
project. It would be approximately $50 per parcel. (Council figured it would be $200
to $300 per parcel) Even at that rate, considering the value of that road for people
to get access, Mr. Lantos felt it is a small amount to pay. Plus that will be reduced
by the dollars paid by the individuals who live along 161st. He also stated maybe
the City is willing to put in some of the dollars.
Mr. Koep - why can't the three landowners put part of that money in; and whatever they
don't put in, allot it to the interior parcels. Council explained if the assessment
policy adopted this evening would apply, those lots south of 161st would have no
assessments. Some of the land is in Green Acres and would have a deferred assessment;
and the benefit to the property would be questionable because it is not developable to
face the street.
Ms. Bauer - felt there would be some benefit to the lots on the south side of 161st
as the tarred road will make those lots more sellable. Council explained the policy
adopted earlier in the evening to exclude the average lot depth on the sideyard
assessment would also apply for those lots; which would mean that those lots on 161st
would be excluded from assessment because only sideyards are adjacent to that street.
Mr. Davidson then reviewed the August 28, 1979, Memo from TKDA relative to the cost
estimate of constructing Tulip Street as an MSAH roadway.
Council discussed the alternative ways of doing 161st; debated when it would be done
if done as an MSAH road; stated an acceptable alternative would be to obtain the right
of way for 16Sth project to protect it; that because of the uncertainty of funds, it
is difficult to make a commitment as to the exact year 161st could be constructed as
an MSAH road; and the 16Sth crossover could cut off several minutes of response time
for the fire department in the northwest portion of the City.
Elaine Green, 16176 Vinta~e - if there is a future for 161st becoming a State Aid road,
she suggested postponlng lt rather than having residents in the remaining project pay
for it. There are so many individuals who are totally against this project in the
first place, if you start adding extra assessments, you are really going to have complaints.
It was the Mayor's feeling that 161st should be constructed first as that road serves
more residents at this time. Councilman Jacobson wanted to make a more definite
commitment; because if 161st is not going to be commited to, he has problems doing the
rest of the project as well. He felt 161st needs to be done either now or at a specific
Special City Council Meeting
August 28, 1979 - Minutes
Page 4
(161st Avenue Discussion, Continued)
time and suggested three, no later than four, years. Because of the information the
Council does not yet have, Councilman Peach didn't feel a specific date could be
set. We have to hear from the Fire and Police Departments on where they need the roads.
If it is an emergency situation, those roads are more important than a second access
to this development. He felt the Road Improvement Committee should raise it on the
priority list, but the Council doesn't have the information to indicate where to put
it on the list. Councilman Lachinski agreed we do not have all the information to set
a firm date and felt comfortable with a three to five year time period.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that 161st from Tulip Street eastward to
County State Aid Highway 9 be eliminated from the improvement project and be placed
in the five-year Municipal State Aid Highway Capital Improvement Construction Plan.
Discussion: That would show an allocation of MSAH funds over the next five years and
would include 161st Avenue. Mr. Davidson stated they have turned in the City's five-
year plan to the State this week. Based on the last meeting, 161st was included in
that plan three years hence.
Dean (1), 16135 Xenia - asked why 161st was only partially upgraded this summer and not
completely done. Councilman Lachinski felt that was done last year and that was only
the minimal maintenance program of the City. He explained the progress the Council
has been making in upgrading sand roads in the City, those roads collecting traffic.
ADDITION TO MOTION by Orttel that the Road Improvement Committee be directed to give
the highest reasonable priority to the improvement of 161st in keeping with the health
and safety of the residents of Andover. Second still stands. (See Resolution R7S-9)
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Windschitl, that it would be put in the
five-year plan and funds would be applied for no later than five years from this date.
Discussion: His intent was that the road be done within the five years and not be put
off. Councilman Lachinski didn't feel there was enough available information at this
time to commit 161st to a specific time, and there is a lot of evaluation that has to
be done on the MSAH program before making a commitment.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Jacobson, Windschitl; NO-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach
Amendment failed.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; NO-Jacobson, Windschitl
Motion carried.
Award Contract - Section 17, Section 18
Mr. Davidson reviewed the bids for the project. With the deletion of 161st from the
project, NDH is the low bidder for Proposals 1 and 3 (Reference Report to the Andover
City Council on Contract Award 1979 Street and Drainage Improvement No.2, Commission
No. 7181, August 28, 1979). The proposed assessment rates for the project consisting
of Proposals 1 and 3 using the low bid of NDH is $14.56 for surfacing and $5.37 for
storm sewer, resulting in an assessment rate on an average lSOx300-foot parcel of
$2,989.50. Changing the assessment policy increases that front-foot cost by approximately
$1 a foot. Also, there are storm sewer easemen~that need to be acquired, which are
not shown in this estimate. The contractor's intent was to begin and complete the
project under this year's construction prices. The contractor expects a 25 percent
increase in AC mix next season and may request an escalator clause on the AC mix.
Mr. Davidson pointed out that there would be some low points on the road where there
may be a drainage problem in the street until the area to provide drainage is acquired,
assuming easements cannot be acquired immediately.
Recess at 9:09; reconvene at 9:28 p.m.
Special City Council Meeting
August 28, 1979 - Minutes
Page 5
(Award Contract ~ Section 17, Section 18, Continued)
Engineer Davidson reviewed the storm sewer system for the Section 17/Section 18 road
improvement project explaining the reason for the additional storm sewer costs.
Where front yards have been improved, the low areas would not be considered as a
permanent pond, and that storm water would be drained to an area considered to be a
permanent pond. Any low area that would not assimilate the 100-year storm were
eliminated from this project as permanent ponding facilities. The pond in the park
in the southeast corner of 161st and Tulip in the long run will be eliminated as a
permanent ponding facility and will be drained to the north when Tulip is upgraded.
One of the reasons for the increased storm sewer costs is because of the elimination
of ponds and the additional storm sewer required in the street to replace those present
ponds. Based on the final design and on the ability of the low areas to assimilate
storm water, they felt the pipe system is more desirable than creating a problem which
may cause damage to property.
Council discussion was that the per front foot cost of the project estimated by TKDA
does not include the acquisition of easements for storm drainage; Engineer estimated less
than two total acres needed to be acquired for storm sewer easements; the estimated
per front foot cost does not contain 10 percent contingency factor; COncerns over
the cost of the project, awarding a contract without easements acquired, and the
possibility of the project carrying over until next year with 25 percent increase in
blacktop costs. Council estimated adding on the unknowns to the front foot cost (change
in assessment policy, acquisition of easement, 10 percent contingency factor, possible
25 percent increase in AC mix if project carried over), the total cost could be as
much as $22 to $25 per front foot. That cost is so much higher than what people were
told at the public hearing; The Engineer was hesitant to go ahead with the project
if the property owners involved, particularly on the easements, are in any way opposed
to the project so that there would be a time delay; but he was not sure if the bids were
postponed that they would be any lower if bid again in the spring. By delaying the
project, there would be additional time to negotiate easement acquisition from residents.
Mr. Davidson stated approximately $13,000 has been spent on this project for the
feasibility study and final plans and specifications to date. Council generally felt
a more favorable bid may be received if it were bid very early in 1980.
Ms. Green ~ when talking about $8 a foot more than what was proposed, she couldn't see
proceeding without first notifying residents involved for a revote.
George Newman, 16132 Xenia Street - felt there must be some figures availabl~ from
other clties to compare these prices to. Then Council should decide on a figure that is
worth the benefit and make a decision on that basis.
Karen Schalberg, 16135 Vintage - The original petition was $9.50 a foot; people were
told when the prices rose; some people didn't care what it was going to cost and were
willing to go to work for that road. She has a l~-acre lot and is going to be charged
for the use of all the roads when she only has Xenia to access onto. A lot of people
felt that all the roads should be considered or none at all. Tulip and 161st has been
dropped from the project, which hasn't helped the cost. She is still in favor of the
project even at this price.
John Peterson, 16120 Vintage - felt if the road isn't done now, it will be three or
four years from nOW; and looking at 15 percent inflation a year, he felt the dollars
would be well spent now.
Mr. McNeal - felt if there was a revote at $22 to $25 figure, a majority of the people
would be against the project.
Council discussion was that the cost is now almost 50 percent over what was estimated
at the public hearing and possibly the people should have another say as to whether or
not they want it at that price. Residents were not notified of the cost per front foot
based on the bids received.
Special City Council Meeting
August 28, 1979 - Minutes
Page 6
(Award Contract - Section 17, Section 18, Continued)
Dan Janiga, 15950 Xenia - was one of the original people taking petitions around. He
really wants the road in, but at the same time feels those on fixed incomes would
have trouble with the assessment. He felt uncomfortable with all the variables so far
and desired to have more concrete facts before making a final decision.
Ms. Bauer - felt that they could get by on less elaborate roads relative to the width,
underground, etc. Mr. Davidson reviewed the road standards stating these are the
minimum road designs. Also, leaving out the storm sewer systems, water would stand on
the surface, which will deteriorate them faster. The width is to allow for parking
and for reaction time as a safety factor.
Dean (7), 16135 Xenia - asked if it is necessary to have storm sewer or drainage.
They have no trouble with drainage the way it is now. Mr. Davidson explained if the
street is designed to run into the low area and the pond cannot assimilate a 100-year
storm and property is damaged, the City is responsible. A 100-year storm means a storm
with a probability of occuring on a 1 percent basis. The present drainage system may
cause some damage to private property during a 100-year storm, but the citizens (the
City) has not created the problem. As soon as the streets are surfaced, a run-off
factor is created different than the natural drainage. Then the City is placing itself
in the position of being susceptible for that damage.
Council felt further research was needed on the cost comparison with Stenquist
Addition project, the dollar effect of the front-foot assessment based on the new
assessment policy, the estimated easement cost, contacting property owners involved
in easement acquisition, the effe~~R~b~an overrun should a portion of the project be
carried to the next construction/ ffect of the 10 percent contingency to be added
on, the necessity of all the proposed piping for the storm drainage system, and how
residents felt about the project given the more accurate cost figure. Council debated
whether to have these answers prior to the next Council meeting and make a decision at
that time or whether to reject these bids and have the project rebid in the spring, 1980.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, a Resolution acknowledging receipt of and
rejecting bids for the construction of bituminous streets for Xenia Street, Vintage
Street, lS8th Avenue, Aztec Street, Enchanted Drive, 161st Avenue in the west half of
Section 17, and Enchanted Drive and Genie Drive in Section 18... Discussion: noted
that the project was not terminated, just these bids were rejected. Question was on
the legality of being able to rebid the project in early spring without another public
hearing. Mayor Windschitl felt there was a six-month ti:me limit under the 429 proceedings.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we rebid the project
after January 1, 1980, after negotiations with landowners for the drainage easements.
(See Resolution R76-9) Discussion: Councilman Peach wanted more input from affected
residents before rebidding the project.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; NO-Peach
Amendmentcarri ed.
Discusšion: Mr. Davidson compared the unit price bids for the Stenquist Addition with
these bids, noting that the mix and AC unit prices were less for this project, but that
excavation and surfacing widths are different for both projects. Mayor Windschitl asked
the Engineer to check to see if going urban design is actually the least expensive
road design for this area.
VOTE ON MOTION: Carried unanimously.
It was Mr. Forness' opinion that if the Council does not proceed with the project within
six months of the public hearing, another hearing must be held; but the Council discussed
havin9 another hearin9 anyway to inform residents of the price and allow them to voice
an oplnion on the project again. That should meet those requirements.
Special City Council Meeting
August 28, 1979 - Minutes
Page 7
(Award Contract - Section 17, Section 18, Continued)
It was the Council's desire that re~iqents hp. notified in writing qf a me~tin~ after
the project is rebid and that a petJtlOn would be accepted after flnal ppce s known
as was done with Stenquist Addition.
Award Contract - Prairie Road Bridge Approach
Council debated whether or not to acquire the easement from R. Rydh at the price of $1,000
for .31 acres as negotiated by the Attorney, since other easements for the project were
acquired on the basis of $1,500 an acre. In the event the acquisition would go through
condemnation proceedings, there is a $300 appraiser's fee, and previous Councils have
looked at that $300 as either part of the settlement or something that would have to be
given if it is condemned. Debate was on whether the other residents should be given
that $300 as well; that those receiving additional compensation for trees are fair and
possibly should not be given that extra $300; that the Attorney should suggest additional
payment for the others to reach some degree of equalization; and on the concern of
justifying the additional price for the Rydh property.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the payment to Mr. Rydh the
amount of $1,000 for .31 acres for an easement for Prairie Road Bridge Approach, and
that we direct the Attorney to review previous payments to other individuals who have
granted easements for this same project and return to the Council with a recommendation
for changes in payment. Discussion: Mr. Davidson stated that the project has been
reduced to the minimum that the State Aid Division would accept for the project. They
have given the City the option of delaying the surfacing for only one year. Discussion
was on the justification for the $1,000 for this land -- this is a small piece of land
needed for the project; further legal action would be costly; this piece of land is all
high ground; it is on the basis of $1,500 an acre with the balance going for trees,
shrubbery, and the $300 appraiser's fee.
Jacobson ADDED TO MOTION that Council notes that the price for this easement is based
upon $1,500 per acre plus amenities on the foresaid property to arrive at the $1,000
figure. Second still stands. (See Resolution R77-9) Discussion: Mayor Windschitl's
opinion was that with the addition, it is trying to justify something the Attorney
should be doing.
VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; NO-Windschitl
Motion carried.
(Awarding of the contract for the project was delayed until after next Agenda Item to
allow Clerk an opportunity to prepare a Resolution)
Set Sale Date - Bonds, Stenquist Addition Project
Mr. Forness explained the bond sale is to fund the Stenquist Addition project. Adding
the cost of the project plus legal and engineering, he recommended selling $270,000
worth of bonds. He suggested bids on the improvement bonds be taken at the September 18
Council meeting and that the term of the bonds be for 15 years to correspond with the
lS-year terms of the assessment based on the even annual installment method of assessment.
Originally he felt if Section 17/Section 18 project would be included with this project,
the bond would not be sold with a discount; however, that factor will be changed
because the issue is smaller with just the Stenquist Addition project, and they may
want to go to a discount bid. With the discount, it would be $275,000. He asked approval
of the 18th of September for taking bids and to give him the opportunity to confer with
his staff and publish in the notice for sale what they, in their best judgement, feel
is going to be in the City's best interest On whether or not to go with the discount.
He anticipated about a 6 percent interest rate that would include the discount factor.
Council discussion was on how the discount method works.
Special City Council Meeting
August 28, 1979 - Minutes
Page 8
(Set Sale Date - Bonds, Stenquist Addition Project, Continued)
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, entering a Resolution authorizing the City's
flscal agent to solicit bids for bonds from the street and storm water improvement
project in Section 18; further authorize fiscal agent to solicit these bids in such a
way as to get the most advantageous overall cost for the City with the bid opening
and sale to be held at 8 o'clock p.m. on 9/18/79 at the Andover City Hall. (See
Resolution R78-9) Motion carried unanimously.
Award Contract - Prairie Road Bridge Approach, Continued
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, entering a Resolution accepting bids and awarding
the contract for the construction of the Prairie Road Bridge Approach '" (Contract
awarded to Forest Lake Contracting in the amount of $56,014.25) (See Resolution R79-9)
Motion carried unanimously.
Special Meeting Dates - Work Sessions for Comprehensive Plan and Budget
Mayor Windschitl explained there is a problem with the zoning in the urban district.
The CitY¿~t getting requests from the people with acreage in the urban area that want
to plat/ ~ ~cres. He felt that type of development in the urban zone is not in the
City's best interest, especially as it relates to the orderly extension of the City's
sanitary sewer lines. It was agreed this should be discussed at the September 4 Council
meeting.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we set a Special City Council Meeting date
of September 13 and September 27 to handle the Budget and Comprehensive Plan
respectively. Motion carried unanimously.
Letter from Bloomberg
Mr. Davidson read a letter from Bloomberg, Inc., to TKDA dated August 21 asking for
the City's intention for the correction of the concrete work on the Public Services
Building. Mr. Davidson explained that TKDA's role is relating the construction to
the plans and specifications and he didn't feel they had been authorized to be in a
bargaining position for the City. Mayor Windschitl also felt that unless additional
money is authorized to TKDA, it was not in the scope of what was intended to have TKDA
negotiate this item.
Councilman Peach stated that since the date of this letter, Mr. Hawkins has written to
Bloomberg advising them of the City's intention that the contractor is in violation of
the contract if the building is not completed by September 16. Councilman Peach felt
that we should wait until September 16 to see what the contractor is going to do;
after that, professional advite will be needed to determine what steps the City should
take to get the building up to standards.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 11:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~
Marce A. Peach
Recording Secretary